This content is fantastic. Like, better than the content I encountered at my university. It's free, I can pause and take notes. Wonderful. If I were a professor, I'd tell my students to do the readings and listen to most of the lectures online in this sort of format and then use most of the class time for actually helping students with writing and developing ideas for their assignments.
Agreed! One of the silver linings to lockdown is that most universities have started recording lectures now. It’s so much more accessible, in so many different ways :)
This video has saved my life!! I was struggling so much with Husserl but now I finally feel like I know what's going on. I would love to see more videos like this covering the rest of Volume One
this was beautiful and so informative. I have no formal training in philosophy and I'm only genuinely interested in this. I must say, I actually understood something. thank you so much for being so lucid :)
Great exposition! I am very curious whether there is some discussion about psychologism as a "driving force" of the constitution of our modern society. Indeed, the dynamics of our modern world is based upon empirical truths which feeds back on how we behave towards one another and think about each other. From this perspective, psychologism is not a mere concept so as to understand two different views of logic which, in turn, would limit itself to the domain of philosophical analysis; it is perhaps the utmost philosophical notion so as to rationally understand how the modern world is wired together on the social-political-economical level and, more importantly, how one can understand and stipulate the mechanisms through which configurations and conformations of the world are set up on the aforementioned levels so as to stabilize or destabilize certain properties thereof. A dynamical-systems view of the world having psychologism as one of its fundamental concepts. That would be very interesting! Of course, I hope that those, who are inclined to conspiracy theories, do not feel addressed by this call. In fact, I have invoked a perspective from which rationality prevails unconditionally.
32:00 Seems like Husserl was foreshadowing Kuhn and the idea of paradigms. Theories need facts to fill them out, but facts are influenced by the scientific theory under which they are perceived. The theories are not some independent truths that are simply applied to physical reality as we were taught in 5th grade when we learned "the Scientific method". Much more complicated
Stanley Goldberg in his _Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution_ made an interesting assertion early in the book when discussing the nature of science, that science commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Anyone care to comment on Goldberg's assertion while I refresh my memory on what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is and how science commits that fallacy? I may think further about this and make a comment myself.
It seems that there are a number of people who reject the assertion. Since I don't possess Goldberg's book, I can't give his reasons for making his claim because it has been a few years since I read his book. However, my gut sense is that he is speaking metaphorically in order to say that an empirical observation may be accounted for by more than one hypothesis, taking the empirical observation (O) as the consequent and a hypothesis (H) as its antecedent, hence, if H, then O. O, therefore H. I recall that this bothered Phaedrus, the alter-ego character who shadows the narrator in Pirsig's _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_, and who, as a student of science, was dissatisfied with the wiggle-room of infinite possible hypotheses to explain empirical phenomena. However, it doesn't seem to bother practicing scientists and this can be illustrative of Husserl's point that science needs a discipline like philosophy to examine the theoretical justification of science. I think it is in this sense that philosophy was called "first philosophy" by philosophers in the Middle Ages when they considered that philosophy would occupy this foundational position with respect to science.
@@molocious You posted this a long time ago, but yes, this is the issue that many people have with some scientific studies. The idea is that if you have established a conditional relationship "The presence of A will indicate B", and you can see that B is present, it does not then mean that the presence of B indicates A. There may be other variables that impact the result, such that A is not the necessary cause of B. So, when some studies are published, sometimes people take issue with the idea that there may be other variables impacting the result. Modern science tries to eliminate those inconsistencies as much as possible, but it's not always perfect.
@@common-rock Thank you for your thoughtful reply, But you should explain how modern science "eliminates those inconsitencies as much as possible." I never asked for perfection. Of course, what philosophers of science do and what practicing scientist do are no doubt worlds apart!
One should also consider a little-read nowadays English philosopher, J. M. E. McTaggart who made the interesting observation that one could never found a religion on science because religion, if it is to last, must have foundational dogmas. Science, on the other hand, is constantly changing, hence the once fashionable thinking of Thomas Kuhn and the changing paradigms of science. One reason for this is the logical fallacy that I described. Newton's hypothesis, or Law until the arrival of Einstein, yielded to Special and General Relativity. (One must remember that Einstein's special relativity paper of 1905, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" made no mention of the earlier Michaelson-Morley experiment whose null result was infamous.) What this means is that empirical considerations were absent in the founding of special relativity. But it's a complex history.) Likewise with quantum mechanics, on the other side of which one of its founders, Einstein himself (the photoelectric paper of 1905) found himself contra Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation. With modern science one must concede that's there's never a dull moment. But I wonder if humans find such eternal restlessness comforting,
On Art ... If you asked Michelangelo about his technique of sculpting David, he would give you a good explanation, much after Aristotle's and Plato's works on Philosophy. When one gets into the art created through Kant's concept of genius as an artist, the artist cannot answer the question. They are creating works out of mind, not logically. As a retired art teacher and philosopher, I see where Kant has undercut the art world ( not for the better). Kant should stick with Aristotle's rules, not weaken the links by bending the rules to fit a modern concept. Much bad art resulted from Kant, as did psychology and philosophy. A slippery slope over the edge. The artist is no longer creating the work they identify with Philosophical concepts. A short-lived bubble that bursts.in midair. If you months later ask an athlete how he did a sure thing, he will walk you through it step by step. Penrose ( quantum physics) also believes intuition is compared with known required skills, not as coming out of nowhere as the Kantian intuitive concept of genius. (ps) Picasso was trained in the classic school of art. This later allowed him to create his cubism.
@@JohnVKaravitis Yours, necessarily, is a "second comment" in relation to Ahmad's "first comment." So, that establishes its necessary cause in relation to succession. But what is its sufficient cause in relation to succession? There is no sufficient cause because succession is infinite, i.e., one can always make further comments ad infinitum. My comment, is, of course, a "third comment." Anyone care to comment?
@@clintonlunn4357 From your lack of punctuation, it's hard to determine if you mean the word "comment," or an imperative command meaning, "Comment!" If it's a command, then it's a comment to which I've replied by way of commenting, in particular, this comment (although I don't like to be self-referential). If it's the word "comment," then it fails to be a comment because it isn't a sentence, that is, if your agree that comments are subsets of sentences. If you were a politician, then to the question, "Would you care to comment?," you'd reply, "No comment," which is an abbreviation of the sentence, "No, I don't care to comment." So, would you care to comment by elucidating your reply? Or are you a politician?
Who's the little head bobbing up and down in the lower right-hand corner? Quite annoying! Also, 1:16:40 Spelling error. Also 1:24:00 It's "judgment", only one "e." Tsk tsk tsk.
Edmund Husserl mastered shorthand so that he could be a more efficient writer and this partly explains his vast legacy of writing known as Husserliana which might make a good name for a rock group. In all of the Husserliana written in shorthand there is not a single spelling mistake, a proposition, by the way, that can only, necessarily, be established with one's posterior--I suppose by sitting on the work--a posteriori.
This content is fantastic. Like, better than the content I encountered at my university. It's free, I can pause and take notes. Wonderful. If I were a professor, I'd tell my students to do the readings and listen to most of the lectures online in this sort of format and then use most of the class time for actually helping students with writing and developing ideas for their assignments.
Agreed! One of the silver linings to lockdown is that most universities have started recording lectures now. It’s so much more accessible, in so many different ways :)
This video has saved my life!! I was struggling so much with Husserl but now I finally feel like I know what's going on. I would love to see more videos like this covering the rest of Volume One
The greatest one i have ever seen.Support!
this was beautiful and so informative. I have no formal training in philosophy and I'm only genuinely interested in this. I must say, I actually understood something. thank you so much for being so lucid :)
Thank you, Mark, I love and admire your excellent presentations😇
Thanks a lot for all the wonderful videos!
Great exposition! I am very curious whether there is some discussion about psychologism as a "driving force" of the constitution of our modern society. Indeed, the dynamics of our modern world is based upon empirical truths which feeds back on how we behave towards one another and think about each other. From this perspective, psychologism is not a mere concept so as to understand two different views of logic which, in turn, would limit itself to the domain of philosophical analysis; it is perhaps the utmost philosophical notion so as to rationally understand how the modern world is wired together on the social-political-economical level and, more importantly, how one can understand and stipulate the mechanisms through which configurations and conformations of the world are set up on the aforementioned levels so as to stabilize or destabilize certain properties thereof. A dynamical-systems view of the world having psychologism as one of its fundamental concepts. That would be very interesting! Of course, I hope that those, who are inclined to conspiracy theories, do not feel addressed by this call. In fact, I have invoked a perspective from which rationality prevails unconditionally.
32:00 Seems like Husserl was foreshadowing Kuhn and the idea of paradigms. Theories need facts to fill them out, but facts are influenced by the scientific theory under which they are perceived. The theories are not some independent truths that are simply applied to physical reality as we were taught in 5th grade when we learned "the Scientific method". Much more complicated
Thanks so much for all your vids!
Shame we didn’t get a 6 hour guide to this text like you did with ideas1.
Great post! Quick note: I understand “Crisis of European Sciences” is actually H’s last life’s work per Britannica.
Excellent synopsis
what is the name of the presentation program?
Can I ask, what programme do you use to create your beautiful presentations?
47:06 bookmark
“Patterns of quantities”.... got it. :-)
Stanley Goldberg in his _Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution_ made an interesting assertion early in the book when discussing the nature of science, that science commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Anyone care to comment on Goldberg's assertion while I refresh my memory on what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is and how science commits that fallacy? I may think further about this and make a comment myself.
It seems that there are a number of people who reject the assertion. Since I don't possess Goldberg's book, I can't give his reasons for making his claim because it has been a few years since I read his book. However, my gut sense is that he is speaking metaphorically in order to say that an empirical observation may be accounted for by more than one hypothesis, taking the empirical observation (O) as the consequent and a hypothesis (H) as its antecedent, hence, if H, then O. O, therefore H.
I recall that this bothered Phaedrus, the alter-ego character who shadows the narrator in Pirsig's _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_, and who, as a student of science, was dissatisfied with the wiggle-room of infinite possible hypotheses to explain empirical phenomena. However, it doesn't seem to bother practicing scientists and this can be illustrative of Husserl's point that science needs a discipline like philosophy to examine the theoretical justification of science. I think it is in this sense that philosophy was called "first philosophy" by philosophers in the Middle Ages when they considered that philosophy would occupy this foundational position with respect to science.
@@molocious You posted this a long time ago, but yes, this is the issue that many people have with some scientific studies. The idea is that if you have established a conditional relationship "The presence of A will indicate B", and you can see that B is present, it does not then mean that the presence of B indicates A. There may be other variables that impact the result, such that A is not the necessary cause of B. So, when some studies are published, sometimes people take issue with the idea that there may be other variables impacting the result. Modern science tries to eliminate those inconsistencies as much as possible, but it's not always perfect.
@@common-rock Thank you for your thoughtful reply, But you should explain how modern science "eliminates those inconsitencies as much as possible." I never asked for perfection. Of course, what philosophers of science do and what practicing scientist do are no doubt worlds apart!
One should also consider a little-read nowadays English philosopher, J. M. E. McTaggart who made the interesting observation that one could never found a religion on science because religion, if it is to last, must have foundational dogmas. Science, on the other hand, is constantly changing, hence the once fashionable thinking of Thomas Kuhn and the changing paradigms of science. One reason for this is the logical fallacy that I described. Newton's hypothesis, or Law until the arrival of Einstein, yielded to Special and General Relativity. (One must remember that Einstein's special relativity paper of 1905, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" made no mention of the earlier Michaelson-Morley experiment whose null result was infamous.) What this means is that empirical considerations were absent in the founding of special relativity. But it's a complex history.) Likewise with quantum mechanics, on the other side of which one of its founders, Einstein himself (the photoelectric paper of 1905) found himself contra Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation. With modern science one must concede that's there's never a dull moment. But I wonder if humans find such eternal restlessness comforting,
Great lecture. Please speak more clearly.
On Art ... If you asked Michelangelo about his technique of sculpting David, he would give you a good explanation, much after Aristotle's and Plato's works on Philosophy. When one gets into the art created through Kant's concept of genius as an artist, the artist cannot answer the question. They are creating works out of mind, not logically. As a retired art teacher and philosopher, I see where Kant has undercut the art world ( not for the better). Kant should stick with Aristotle's rules, not weaken the links by bending the rules to fit a modern concept. Much bad art resulted from Kant, as did psychology and philosophy. A slippery slope over the edge. The artist is no longer creating the work they identify with Philosophical concepts. A short-lived bubble that bursts.in midair.
If you months later ask an athlete how he did a sure thing, he will walk you through it step by step. Penrose ( quantum physics) also believes intuition is compared with known required skills, not as coming out of nowhere as the Kantian intuitive concept of genius.
(ps) Picasso was trained in the classic school of art. This later allowed him to create his cubism.
❤∀❤
"Mathematics is a science" ?????
+1USD
First comment
"Comment with least value" award winner! Congratulations!
@@JohnVKaravitis Yours, necessarily, is a "second comment" in relation to Ahmad's "first comment." So, that establishes its necessary cause in relation to succession. But what is its sufficient cause in relation to succession? There is no sufficient cause because succession is infinite, i.e., one can always make further comments ad infinitum. My comment, is, of course, a "third comment." Anyone care to comment?
@@molocious comment
@@clintonlunn4357 From your lack of punctuation, it's hard to determine if you mean the word "comment," or an imperative command meaning, "Comment!" If it's a command, then it's a comment to which I've replied by way of commenting, in particular, this comment (although I don't like to be self-referential). If it's the word "comment," then it fails to be a comment because it isn't a sentence, that is, if your agree that comments are subsets of sentences. If you were a politician, then to the question, "Would you care to comment?," you'd reply, "No comment," which is an abbreviation of the sentence, "No, I don't care to comment." So, would you care to comment by elucidating your reply? Or are you a politician?
Who's the little head bobbing up and down in the lower right-hand corner? Quite annoying! Also, 1:16:40 Spelling error. Also 1:24:00 It's "judgment", only one "e." Tsk tsk tsk.
I suggest to do better, rather than complaining. The effort taken into this video must enormous, even though it has some typos in it.
Edmund Husserl mastered shorthand so that he could be a more efficient writer and this partly explains his vast legacy of writing known as Husserliana which might make a good name for a rock group. In all of the Husserliana written in shorthand there is not a single spelling mistake, a proposition, by the way, that can only, necessarily, be established with one's posterior--I suppose by sitting on the work--a posteriori.
NOTHING EXISTS